RPA MIN 00031/11/HC/MUS Page |2 III. SUBMISSIONS OF PARTIES ON THESE ISSUES AND THE COURT’S ANALYSIS [3] Nshimiyimana Anaclet's appeal is based on two reasons, the first of which is to request that the High Court reduce the sentence imposed by the first instance court, based on the fact that he pleaded guilty and had not previously been prosecuted by courts, and the second ground of appeal was that he was not given the same sentence as Jean-Dieu Ndayambaje while they were co-authors of the same crime. [4] With regard to these points, the Prosecution argues that the reduction of the sentence requested by the defendant was done in the first instance but that the punishment he was given is lenient compared to the seriousness of the crime, particularly the fact that two young men raped one girl. The Prosecutor further submits that the imposition of different sanctions against Nshimiyimana Anaclet and his co-author Ndayambaje Jean de Dieu is due to the young age of Ndayambaje Jean de Dieu. The prosecution concludes by requesting that the appellate court upholds the judgment RPMin 0008/010/TGI/MUS also orders Nshimiyimana Anaclet to pay proceedings costs because his appeal is unfounded. [5] It appears in paragraph 13 of page 4 of the judgment RPMin 0008/010 / TGI / MUS under appeal, that the offence Nshimiyimana Anaclet committed can be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of up to thirteen years, but this sentence was reduced by the trial court in the first instance based on the fact that Nshimiyimana Anaclet pleaded guilty unquestionably, and Article 35 of Law n ° 13/2004 of 17/05/2004 relating to Criminal Procedure Code as modified and supplemented by Law n ° 20/2006 of 22/04/2006, relied upon to reduce Nshimiyimana Anaclet's sanction, provides that the defendant who undoubtedly pleads guilty can be sentenced to half of the sentence. The High Court therefore finds that this provision does not compel the judge to impose the minimum sentence provided for but gives him the freedom to determine the sentence within the limits set by the provisions taking into account various factors including the gravity of the offense and the impact of the offense on the victim. [6] Based on the foregoing, the High Court finds that sentence of 5 years of imprisonment given to Anaclet Nshimiyimana in the RPMin 0008/010 / TGI / MUS case is within the provisions of the law and is in line with the gravity of the offense. Therefore, Nshimiyimana Anaclet's appeal on this point is unfounded. [7] The High Court also finds that the reason why Nshimiyimana Anaclet was given a heavier sentence than Ndayambaje Jean de Dieu was reasonably explained in paragraph 13 of page 4 of case RPMin 0008/010 / TGI / MUS appealed against. In addition to the reduction of the sentence of Nshimiyimana Anaclet and Ndayambaje Jean de Dieu on the ground of unquestionable confession, Ndayambaje Jean de Dieu has the particularity of